Municipality must know about its Land and Encroachment under its jurisdiction- Good Decision by RIC

[sharmajee]

Sharing two good decions of Raj Information Commission
2420/11
RTI filed on 27.11.10 seeking details of illegal construction of flat no. ‘XXX’ of ‘XYZ’ person, from commissioner, Municipal Corporation. Respondent denied it saying 3^rd Party information.

FAO by his order 27.4.11, decided that if in legal opinion giving information is permissible, please provide.

SIC in its decision dated 24.2.12 held that information sought cannot be denied u/s 11(1), directed to provide information free of cost by regd post.

Points to Ponder:

1. No comments on the the wordings of FAO’s order.
2. Forget delay……

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2645/11

Appellant filed RTI with Municipality on 8.11.10 seeking details of land under its jurisdiction, on how much of its land unauthorized encroachment is there and efforts made by Municipality to remove such encroachment. PIO did not provide.

FAO by its order dated 10.1.11, denied information u/s 8(1)(j), saying no public interest involved and involves many different persons personal information.

During appeal hearing PIO through his counsel submitted that PIO has already informed appellant by his letter dated 22.7.11, that sought information is not maintained by his office, hence denied u/s 2(j).

Ld SIC noted in its appeal decision11.4.12, state of sad affairs. SIC noted that Municipality must know if any body has encroached on its land and what action taken on that.

SIC finally decided that non maintenance of this information, is an act that will show negligence on duties by Municipality and held that FAO was not right in taking shelter of 8(1)(j), therefore cancelled FAO order and directed PIO to provide information free in 21 days.

Points to Ponder:

1. No order on delaying tactic of PIO and FAO abused their position to save each other.
2. Same PIO would have rejected the application if appellant had not paid fee or filed application/ First Appeal with a little lacuna.
3. Such soft looks on PIO leads to many unwanted appeals with SIC ultimately.

In both above cases would it have been proper to order for disclosure of above details on website too u/s 4(1)(B)?